I have written columns and blogs through the years about the disturbing trend on U.S. campuses toward free regulation and controls. In the name of diversities and tolerance, college administrators and professors are enforcing greater and greater controls on speech –declaring certain views or terms to be forms of racism or more commonly “microaggressions.” The latter term is gaining support to expand the range of controls over speech and conduct to include things that are indirect or minor forms of perceived intolerance. The crackdown seems most prevalent in California where lists of “micro aggressions” seems to be mounting as a macroaggression on free speech. The new list of verboten terms out of University of California (Berkeley), headed by Janet Napolitano, captures the insatiable appetite for speech regulation. The school has asked faculty to stop using terms like “melting pot” or statements like “I believe the most qualified person should get the job.” They are now all microaggressions. Not only are school buying into the concept of microaggressions and speech regulation, but they are shaping a generation of students who seem to look for any possible interpretation of terms to take offensive at.
Ironically, while using the term “melting pot” is now viewed as an unacceptable microaggression, actual aggression in the form of assault by a faculty member on people for using free speech is not considered an offense worthy of termination — indeed it was an act deemed understandable if not heroic by some students and faculty in the case of California Professor Miller-Young.
Napolitano asked UC deans and department chairs to attend seminars “to foster informed conversation about the best way to build and nurture a productive academic climate.” The seminars includes handouts with these terms as part of the program called “Recognizing Microaggressions and the Messages They Send.” The manuals were reportedly adapted from a book by Columbia University Psychology Professor Derald Wing Sue. For civil libertarians, the handouts should be entitled “Recognizing Speech Codes and The Speech They Curtail.”
Some points have been previously discussed on this blog. For example, now discouraged is the statement “There is only one race, the human race.” We saw recently how the President of Smith College was forced into a mea culpa for saying “all lives matter.” Such collective valuations of live and humanity is now considered offensive because it denies “the significance of a person of color’s racial/ethnic experience and history.” A microaggression.
Likewise, “America is the land of opportunity” somehow suggests that “People of color are lazy and/or incompetent and need to work harder” while asking an Asian, Latino, or Native American “why are you so quiet?” is trying to force him to “assimilate to dominant culture.” Finding such microaggressions has become a virtual cottage industry (if I can say that without degrading any cultures that do not use — or use — cottages). Even some of the most important social and political debates are now considered racist if one side is spoken directly. For example, the Supreme Court and the nation has continued to debate affirmative action and whether it is a form of racism. However, saying “Affirmative action is racist,” is now deemed a microaggression by default. Thus, you can have the debate — just do not state your position on the ultimate question. Academics supporting such views seem wholly unconcerned that the barring of the expression depends on your first accepting the opposing premise on the issue of affirmative action. Consider the defense of OiYan Poon, an assistant professor of higher education at Loyola University in Chicago: “The statement that ‘affirmative action is racist’ completely ignores the history and purpose of affirmative action, which is to address inequalities resulting from the many ways our government and society have prevented people of color from accessing economic, educational and political opportunities and rights.” That is of course the opposing position in favor of affirmative action. It is worth noting that the Supreme Court has declared affirmative action to be unconstitutional for universities admissions. Recent opinions explore the limited range in which race may be considered for purposes of diversity, not affirmative action. However, the main problem is that the barring of this expression as a microaggression assumes that affirmative action is not racist — the very point under debate. In this sense, one side controls the debate by declaring the opposing view as simply racist to express.
The expanding efforts to curtail speech on college campuses shows how the taste for speech controls can become insatiable for many. Ironically, liberal faculty once rallied whole campuses to fight for free speech. Now, many are leading the fight against the speech of opposing groups as essential to a “tolerant” society. It is a dangerous trend that we are seeing throughout the West. However, the campaign of faculty to deny speech on campuses presents an existential threat to the entire academic mission. We are education a new generation that free speech is a danger to rather than the definition of a free society.
Source: Daily Beast
@Ken Rogers
Kewl link! You asked, “but what word do you use to describe contemporary “whites” who riot and destroy property after athletic agons, Girl Reporter? “Revelers”? “Scamps”? “People I’d Like to Party With”?
Uh, er, uh, . . . . Democrats???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
@Nick: ” I had a cataract removed from my right eye this morning. My left eye next week. ”
Ouch! I wondered where you were. Hope you remembered to pick up a bottle of Rye on the way to the clinic.
OK, so I’m late to the party. But …
I welcome UC Berkeley’s walk down the “nobody get their feelings hurt” path. And here’s why. Corporate America will eat them up and spit them out.
My three adult children don’t give a crap about politically correct speech; and they all are excelling in their careers. They get the work done and they generate value for their customers and their shareholders.
I’m happy to see groups/hordes of young folk fail to learn the skills necessary to compete in Corporate America, when they are competing against hordes of young folk who value value creation above political correctness.
In the politically incorrect world of “the best qualified person gets the job”, the politically correct don’t.
God Bless Capitalism
Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter on Feral Drooling Thugs If They Aren’t White Kids Just Havin’ Fun
1, June 23, 2015 at 6:37 pm
“@KenRogers
“I think right now that blacks have a stranglehold on the word, thugs.”
I know you do, Squeeky Heart. That’s part of the charming ethnocentric constriction of your consciousness.
“But so have other groups over time. It would be racist to deny blacks the chance to be called ‘thugs.’ ”
Yes, there are “black” people who have behaved thuggishly in various ways, but what word do you use to describe contemporary “whites” who riot and destroy property after athletic agons, Girl Reporter? “Revelers”? “Scamps”? “People I’d Like to Party With”?
Check out your short-bus reportorial competition in the double-standard derby in this short film segment, GR, then get back to me:
http://www.bravenewfilms.org/whiteriots?utm_campaign=riots_inequalit&utm_medium=email&utm_source=bravenew
Last but not least, what Nick said at 6:24 PM. I sort of miss Po who occasionally posts a gem, but usually manages to get us wrasslin’ in the mud. Yet we survive to argue another day. I think that is a good thing.
Come to think of it…among things I am grateful for are the numerous card carryin’ Communist I had for professors and instructors in college (the 1960’s)…because, bless their hearts, they encouraged dissent and defense of positions. No one got by with just tossing off PC crap. What has happened to that free world where you were held accountable for your opinions? Even the most conservative of us all had subscriptions to Ramparts magazine and found it illuminating, even if not in agreement with our own personal ideals. If no one challenges you, you are just talking to a wall.
That said, I’d likely be kicked out of college for what I was able to say freely back then. On the other hand, with the tremendous tuition today, driven by federal loans and grants, I could not have gone to college at all…and would still be the original skilled tradesman & soldier for a time period of the day.
We need to fix this so that even the least of us can participate in a university setting without giant debt…a debt I could never have afforded. I was one of those who worked full time attend school at night, so perhaps were a bit more serious minded given the sacrifice.
No one can control what another’s mind will hear (e.g., dog whistles) so use of language isn’t about the listener, it is about the character of the speaker. That said, I avoid using common pejoratives for races or ethnic groups because they serve no informative purpose. And yes, I tend to offense if those terms are used in conversation with me…so I suppose I am a bit PC myself. 🙂
Microaggression? Shouldn’t we worry about all the damn macro-aggression first? I mean, Christ on a Crutch, I can’t keep up with all the damnable terminology, let alone figure out how to integrate the corresponding courtesies into my generally surly day to day interactions. The combination of individuals whose lives are spent seeking out opportunities to feel victimized, combined with the panels of university faculty who devote considerable energies into developing new vectors for offense–likely for no other reason than a chance at turning the results into scholarly papers– weigh down progress like cast iron anchors
Maineuh asked …
Is anybody reminded of Orwell’s ‘newspeak’ in all of this?
You betcha. 🙂
old nurse posed …
However, I’ll believe that this is only a “leftist” problem when I am allowed to criticize the policies of the Israeli government and not be called an anti-semite. Not holding my breath.
Read more Israeli blogs…you will find more criticism there of their government than anywhere else. Most of the Israelis I know are conservative (but not orthodox) Jews. They delight in critical assessment of their own government. Among the most confusing of parliamentary governments, they do manage to keep it in good humor…except for the die hards, whom they mostly ignore. They seem to get it that with any 2 Jews you will get 3 opinions…and in some cases, 30. Unlike us, where we seem dedicated to PC everything.
Squeeky said …
I hope you will reconsider your choice of words. (Ohhhh, I need a cigarette. . .)
Might I suggest a high end vapor device, such as the Aspire Nautilus? With a large battery pack attached. No tar, no smoke, no hassle, and no nicotine if you choose that. You want hot pepper flavor or peppermint, you got it, nicotine free too. Beyond that, no stinky butts, burning remnants in ash trays, no ash, and no smoke stained ceilings if you “vape” indoors. The one I use tastes for all the world like a straight Camel, without the irritants or hassle. Best part, my cancer doctors do not object, and fall just short of recommending per se. 😀
“There’s a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part! You can’t even passively take part! And you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels…upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop! And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!”
-Mario Savio, Sproul Hall, U.C. Berkeley, December 2, 1964.
Maybe it’s time to move the annual Mario Savio Memorial Lecture from Berkeley to a campus which still honors the Free Speech Movement.
@KenRogers
I think right now that blacks have a stranglehold on the word, thugs. But so have other groups over time. It would be racist to deny blacks the chance to be called “thugs.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/28/the-changing-context-of-who-gets-called-a-thug-in-america/
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporterf
Definition of RACE:
As seen in the Websters New world Dictionary…………………
Per Mr. Webster, Race can actually be more than just “mankind” Check out #6. shocked me.
Race: 1. (a) any of the three major biological divisions of mankind, distinguished by color or hair and skin, stature, etc. (b) mankind. 2. any geographical, national, or tribal ethnic grouping. 3. (a) the state of belonging to a certain ethnic group group.(b) the characteristics or features of such a group. 4. any group of people having the same ancestry. 5. any group of people regarded as a distinct class as the “race” dramatists. 6.a group of plants or animals with distinguishing traits passed on to the offspring. ……….
Skeptic – Noah Webster has been dead for quite a long time. All dictionaries are called Webster dictionaries to indicate that they are using American English for their spelling.
Here’s what impresses me most about this thread. There were few of the usual suspects, conflicted about the 1st Amendment, that made statements to provoke. They were met w/ either civil replies, or even better, ignored. I sense a slight shift in the MSM. They have been complicit w/ the Education Industry on this assault on free speech. I believe forums like this, Instapundit, Legal Insurrection, Volkh, TheFire, are making a difference. I also am heartened to see our guerilla fighters, comedian, skewering PC like only they can. PC must be defeated by any means necessary. I had a cataract removed from my right eye this morning. My left eye next week. Reading this superb thread of comments makes it worth the effort to keep my operative eye open. You good commenters should all be proud and take a bow.
Nick – you know you will be able to carry on a decent discussion in any class on a UC campus. The AAUP should be up in arms about this.
Pogo Hears a Who
1, June 23, 2015 at 4:54 pm
“ ‘Here’s a link to an additionally informative essay by Robby Soave at The Daily Beast, “The University of California’s Insane Speech Police’:”
“Or, more simply, ‘The University of California’s Insane.”
Simpler isn’t always better, PHaW. I’m surprised that that wasn’t indelibly impressed on you by eight years of Smirking Frat Boy’s military adventures.
http://politicalhumor.about.com/cs/georgewbush/a/top10bushisms.htm
Karen S
1, June 23, 2015 at 2:38 pm
“I believe this belief that thug refers to black people can be traced to the LL Cool J song, “Phenomenon” where he says:
“ ‘I was looking at her in the limelight, pearly whites
Said her man get paper but he don’t live right
All these emotions flowing inside the club
Do you really wanna thug or do ya want love?’
A charmingly Schulte-esque analysis, KS, but what do you do with the obvious contrasting in the lyrics of a “thug,” i.e., someone who “don’t live right,” with someone who can “love” her, the woman to whom the song is addressed?
” ‘Thug’ started to become used in songs to describe the emulation of criminal culture.”
Is this just off-the-top-of-your-head ethnocentrism, or can you document this interestingly ambiguous, if not altogether dubious, assertion?
Here’s something to get you started if you’re really interested in the history and currency of the word:
“THUG LIFE
“A phrase born on the streets of Los Angeles. During the early 1990’s, several politicians, including Bob Dole had characterized rap artists as Thugs. Indeed, this was taken as an attack on the hip hop community as a whole.
“Many, including the late Tupac Shakur, had rejected the criminal implication. It was clear to those in the hip hop community that anyone who attempts to rise from despair would be labeled a Thug. Hence, Thug Life became a phrase meaning “the life one must lead in order to rise through the everyday sturggle”; understood by those “in the know” and misunderstood by all others.
“Today, Thug Life represents a large underground community who’s successful members are constantly in the public eye. In several parts of the United States and around the world, small boutiques even carry a ‘Thug Life’ clothing brand, which was founded in Los Angeles in 1996, the year of Tupac Shakur’s much publicized shooting. Those wearing the phrase Thug Life are believed to be members of the Thug Life movement. Tupac Shakur’s acronym for ‘Thug Life’ is THE HATE U GIVE LIL’ INFANTS F**KS EVERYBODY.’ ”
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thug+Life&defid=3837548
You may also want to consider why “white” post-game rioters and destroyers of property for the fun of it are never referred to as “thugs” by the corporate media, but “black” rioters against injustice frequently are:
http://www.bravenewfilms.org/whiteriots?utm_campaign=riots_inequalit&utm_medium=email&utm_source=bravenew
Sadly, many of the UC schools are part of the PAC-12 and this might infect the other schools.
If I were teaching in the UC system I would get a copy of the microaggressions and read them all out on the first day of class. Then I would tell my class that all of these terms and phrases were welcome in discussions in this class. If anyone had a problem, this was the time to drop the class.
“Here’s a link to an additionally informative essay by Robby Soave at The Daily Beast, “The University of California’s Insane Speech Police”:”
Or, more simply, “The University of California’s Insane”.
@ fiver
1, June 23, 2015 at 10:51 am
“The University of California (no, not just Berkeley) responded to these allegations of censorship stating:
” ‘To suggest that the University of California is censoring classroom discussions on our campuses is wrong and irresponsible. No such censorship exists. UC is committed to upholding, encouraging, and preserving academic freedom and the free flow of ideas throughout the University. As such, the media characterization of voluntary seminars for UC deans and department heads about campus climate issues — similar to seminars at university campuses throughout the country — is inaccurate.
” ‘Contrary to what has been reported, no one at the University of California is prohibited from making statements such as “America is a melting pot,” “America is the land of opportunity,” or any other such statement. Given the diverse backgrounds of our students, faculty and staff, UC offered these seminars to make people aware of how their words or actions may be interpreted when used in certain contexts. Deans and department heads were invited, but not required, to attend the seminars.’
“Criticizing speech and identifying offensive speech is not censorship. There may be a weak, highly attenuated, ‘this is a slippery-slope-on-a-path-to-censorship’ argument to make (as Professor Volokh has attempted), but to claim that voluntary seminars educating people on offensive speech are themselves censorship is simply inaccurate.”
Rather than its being a “weak and highly attenuated slippery-slope argument,” I view this soft-core censorship as putting UC well on its way down the slippery slope to the hard-core variety at the bottom.
As Professor Volokh (who teaches in the UC system) cogently observes,
“So let’s see if I understand it. “Microaggressions” are defined as ‘send[ing] denigrating messages’ based (in relevant part) on race. Unsurprisingly, they are labeled as potentially leading to ‘hostile learning environments,’ which the university and the federal government views as legally actionable. The university as an employer is telling its employees, including many employees who don’t have tenure, that expressing certain views is a ‘microaggression.’
“But then the university insists that it’s ‘preserving academic freedom and the free flow of ideas.’ Because, you know, lecturers, adjuncts, not-yet-tenured faculty members, and so on, will read this and say, ‘sure, I can express my ideas condemning affirmative action, and be labeled by UC as engaging in “microaggressions” — of course UC isn’t going to retaliate against me for that.’ Doesn’t seem to reflect how actual employees behave in the face of such statements from the employer’s Office of the President, Academic and Personnel Programs department
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2015/06/wapo-publishes-volokh-on.html
I suggest that this is one more manifestation of the government-corporatist mentality. The fact that a former Secretary of Homeland Security is the president of the University of California itself speaks volumes about the state of higher ed at the U of C.
The UC administration wants its corporate employees to take these PR seminars so as not to offend in any way the corporation’s paying customers, the students. That this is antithetical to the mission of any self-respecting institution of higher learning is irrelevant to the corporatists, who are focused on the fees and tuition contributing to their fiscal bottom line. This also accounts for the UC Administration’s handling of the assault on two non-students on campus by Professor Mireille Miller-Young, who was convicted of that assault, but never (to my knowledge) sanctioned by the UC Administration.
Here’s a link to an additionally informative essay by Robby Soave at The Daily Beast, “The University of California’s Insane Speech Police”:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/22/the-university-of-california-s-insane-speech-police.html
@Ken Rogers: ““Wow! How did you become so good at math?” is not an act of aggression—micro or otherwise. It’s a compliment.”
As someone who has struggled with more than a few math courses, that question is much more than just a complement. If anybody has a few pointers for becoming good at math, please post them here.
More seriously, Robby Soave’s article gives hope that more thoughtful and critical minds still reside on college campuses.
How can anyone hope to think critically if they have never faced the challenge of engaging different, disturbing, and offensive points of view?
Students who are not being introduced to deeply offensive subjects on a regular basis and taught how to work through the logic and facts that purportedly support those subjects are being robbed of real education.
bfm – I am not speaking from experience, only from what I have heard, but the Kahn courses are supposed to be helpful. Also try math.com.
@Paul C. Schulte: ” I am not speaking from experience, only from what I have heard, but the Kahn courses are supposed to be helpful. Also try math.com”
Well there ya’ go. Question asked and answered. What was microaggressive about that?
I’m just glad they are censoring the Confederate Flag no so there will be no more violence. We have become such a stupid nation.